Strike or Election: A Nationalist Dilemma
1959, a British colony in Africa. A legislative election is due in 14 months, and the nationalist party needs two more seats to control the legislature. The party has 40,000 members, mostly in the towns. Its ally, the trade union federation, has 28,000 dues payers in the docks and railways and is demanding a 15% wage increase, threatening a general strike. Union strike funds can pay 12,000 workers for nine days. The governor has stated publicly that he will not discuss constitutional advance while 'order is disrupted'. Party leaders argue that a strike would lose moderate votes; union leaders reply that the party is financed and staffed by their members. The party's executive meets in a week to decide its position.
1. What should the party executive decide, and what information would change that judgement?
Read the worked answer
The arithmetic frames the choice. Strike funds cover 12,000 of 28,000 union members for nine days - enough for a demonstration, not for a war of attrition. The governor has made order a precondition for constitutional talks, and the party needs two seats.
A long general strike therefore risks all three objectives: it cannot be sustained, it hands the governor an excuse, and it may frighten the moderate voters the party needs. But simply opposing the strike is also risky, because the party's urban membership overlaps with the unions, and the wage claim is the grievance that mobilises those members.
The strongest judgement is a short, tightly timed stoppage - three to five days, in the docks only - coupled with a negotiated settlement presented as a party victory, timed well before the election so that order is visibly restored.
What would change this: if union members make up a large share of registered voters in the two target seats, the party cannot afford to be seen suppressing the claim; if employers hold large stockpiles, a short strike achieves nothing; and if the governor's statement is bluff, the calculation changes entirely.
2. How should a historian weigh party archives, union minutes and colonial intelligence reports on this decision?
Read the worked answer
Each source was written for a purpose, and that purpose shapes what it can be trusted to show.
- Party archives explain and justify decisions to members and to history. They are strong on stated reasoning, weak on private bargains, and are often assembled after the event.
- Union minutes are contemporaneous and record bargaining positions, attendance and factional disputes. They are the best source for what the unions actually demanded, but they may be incomplete and are written by the winning faction's secretary.
- Colonial intelligence reports describe the party and unions as subversive, inflate the threat to justify budgets and emergency powers, and often contain the most precise attendance figures because someone was counting.
The historian should compare dates and numbers across all three, and treat systematic disagreement as evidence in itself: where the intelligence report doubles the crowd figure the newspaper reported, that gap tells you about the politics of counting.
3. The party wins the election but the wage claim fails. How far does that vindicate the executive's decision?
Read the worked answer
Only partly, and the answer depends on what the decision was for.
If the party's aim was constitutional advance, then winning the election is close to success, and the failed wage claim is a cost paid by the unions. If the aim was a broader movement in which workers were partners rather than instruments, the outcome is a defeat, because the party has used union mobilisation and delivered nothing for it.
The historian should avoid judging by outcome alone, since a decision can be reasonable and still fail, or reckless and still succeed. The relevant test is whether the executive reasoned from accurate information: did it know how much strike fund existed, how voters were distributed, and whether the governor was bluffing?
The aftermath is also evidence. If the unions disaffiliated within two years and the party lost its urban branches, the decision damaged the movement it was meant to protect - a cost invisible in the election result itself.